Abstract
Background
The Oxford shoulder score (OSS) is being used increasingly and has been adapted cross-culturally in some Western countries. On the other hand, there are few validated translations of the OSS in Asian countries. This study translated and adapted cross-culturally the original OSS to produce a Korean version, and assessed the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the OSS (Korean OSS).
Methods
One hundred and five patients with shoulder pain caused by degenerative or inflammatory disorders completed the Korean OSS and Korean disability of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH). In addition, the pain score by a visual analog scale (VAS) during activity and at rest, subjective assessment of activities of daily living (ADL), the active range of motion (ROM), and measurements of the abduction strength (strength) were included in the validation process.
Results
There were no major linguistic or cultural problems during the forward and backward translations of the MHQ, except for a minor change due to cultural discrepancies in eating such as using a spoon and chopsticks by one dominant hand instead of a knife and fork by two hands. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.91). The reproducibility test showed no significant difference (Intra-class coefficient 0.95). The construct validity, which was tested by the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a strong correlation (r > 0.6) between the Korean OSS against subscale of DASH disability/symptom, DASH work and ADL, as well as a moderate correlation (0.3 < r < 0.6) with the DASH sports/music, strength, ROM, pain during activity and pain at rest.
Conclusion
The Korean OSS proved to be valid by demonstrating a significant correlation with the patient-based upper extremity questionnaire and clinical assessment. The application and evaluation of the instrument is feasible and understandable among patients in Korea.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chard MD, Hazleman R, Hazleman BL, King RH, Reiss BB (1991) Shoulder disorders in the elderly: a community survey. Arthritis Rheum 34(6):766–769
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(4):593–600
Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164
King GJ, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD, Blasier R, Dillman C, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Iannotti JP, Murnahan JP, Mow VC, Woo SL (1999) A standardized method for assessment of elbow function Research Committee, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(4):351–354
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29(6):602–608
Harvie P, Pollard TC, Chennagiri RJ, Carr AJ (2005) The use of outcome scores in surgery of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):151–154
Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K (2003) Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 19(10):1109–1120
Christie A, Hagen KB, Mowinckel P, Dagfinrud H (2009) Methodological properties of six shoulder disability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(1):89–95
Huber W, Hofstaetter JG, Hanslik-Schnabel B, Posch M, Wurnig C (2004) The German version of the Oxford Shoulder Score cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(8):531–536
Berendes T, Pilot P, Willems J, Verburg H, te Slaa R (2010) Validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford Shoulder Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(6):829–836
Murena L, Vulcano E, D’Angelo F, Monti M, Cherubino P (2010) Italian cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oxford shoulder score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(3):335–341
Tugay U, Tugay N, Gelecek N, Ozkan M (2011) Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(5):687–694
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46(12):1417–1432
Lee JY, Lim JY, Oh JH, Ko YM (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand outcome questionnaire (K-DASH). J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(4):570–574
Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of clinical research: application to practice, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA
Green SB, Yang Y (2009) Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika 74(1):121–135
Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Measur 64(3):391
Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38(1):27–36
Trochin VM, Donnelly JP (2007) The research methods knowledge base, 3rd edn. Thomson, OH, USA
Kane RL (1997) Understanding health care outcomes research, 2nd edn. Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (2009) The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(1):119–123
Park M, Chesla C (2007) Revisiting Confucianism as a conceptual framework for Asian family study. J Fam Nurs 13(3):293–311
Tsai YF (2007) Gender differences in pain and depressive tendency among Chinese elders with knee osteoarthritis. Pain 130(1–2):188–194
Hendrickson AR, Massey PD, Cronan TP (1993) On the test–retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quarterly:227–230
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Peter Jin Son, Jun Suk Lee and Victoria Hill for their recommendations on the cross-cultural adaptation process, Sung Yup Lee for his assistance in data collection.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Korean version of the Oxford shoulder score.
어깨 관절 설문지
지난 4주간 어깨 사용에 관한 질문입니다. (각 질문에 하나만 표시하세요.)
-
1.
어깨가 가장 아팠을 때의 통증은 어느 정도였나요?
□ 아프지 않았다 □ 약간 아팠다 □ (중간 정도로) 아팠다 □ 심하게 아팠다 □ 참을 수 없었다
-
2.
어깨가 아파서 스스로 옷 입는데 어려움이 있었나요?
□ 전혀 어렵지 않았다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ (중간 정도로) 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 스스로 옷을 입을 수 없었다
-
3.
어깨 문제로 차를 타고 내리거나 대중교통을 이용할 때 어려움이 있었나요?
□ 전혀 문제 없었다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 이용하지 못할 정도였다
-
4.
양손으로 그릇과 수저를 잡고 식사할 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 동시에 사용할 수 없었다
-
5.
혼자서 장을 볼 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 혼자서는 불가능했다
-
6.
음식을 담은 접시를 다른 방으로 옮길 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 옮길 수 없었다
-
7.
아픈 쪽 팔을 이용하여 머리카락 빗질을 할 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 빗질을 할 수 없었다
-
8.
어깨의 통증은 평소 어느 정도였나요?
□ 전혀 아프지 않았다 □ 거의 아프지 않았다 □ 약간 아팠다 □ 아팠다 □ 매우 아팠다
-
9.
아픈 쪽 팔을 이용해 옷장에 옷을 걸 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 옷을 걸 수 없었다
-
10.
두 팔로 자신의 몸을 스스로 씻고 닦을 수 있었나요?
□ 쉽게 가능했다 □ 약간 어려웠다 □ 어려웠다 □ 매우 어려웠다 □ 할 수 없었다
-
11.
어깨 통증이 일상적인 일(집안일 포함)을 하는 데에 얼마나 방해가 되었나요?
□ 전혀 상관 없었다 □ 약간 방해가 되었다 □ 방해가 되었다 □ 매우 방해가 되었다 □ 일상적인 일을 못할 정도였다
-
12.
어깨 통증으로 야간 수면에 불편함을 겪은 날이 있었나요?
□ 전혀 없었다 □ 한 두 번 있었다 □ 몇 번 있었다 □ 많이 있었다 □ 매일 있었다
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roh, Y.H., Noh, J.H., Kim, W. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Oxford shoulder score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 93–99 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1393-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1393-3